Kolkata Court September 1974 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Great Pyramid Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1974
Reported in: [1976]102ITR394(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The assessee is an Indian company. We are concerned with tin question whether in the relevant year the assessee was an investment company. The reference arises out of the proceedings under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year1961-62, the previous year for which ended on the 31st December, 1961. If the assessee was an investment company, the assessee had to declare not less than 90 per cent. of the distributable income as dividend. According to the assessee it was carrying on the business of insurance and as such it could not be termed as an investment company. It is undisputed that the assessee was carrying on the business of general insurance, namely, marine, fire and miscellaneous insurance, until the 29th January, 1960. On that date according to the explanatory statement sent to the shareholders in connection with the year 1966, the company ceased to carry on any class of insurance business. By the letter dated the 29th January, ...
Mohatta Brothers Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1974
Reported in: [1975]36STC582(Cal)
Sabyasachi MukhaRji, J.1. In this reference under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with Section 21(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, we are concerned with two questions which have been referred to this court as directed by this court. The questions are as follows :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of Rule 4(4) of the Central Sales Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, was right in holding that neither the Assistant Commissioner nor the Additional Commissioner was empowered to accept and consider the declaration form filed by the assessee along with the petition of appeal ?(ii) If the answer to question (i) be in the negative then whether the learned Member, Board of Revenue, was right in holding that the merits of the case were not affected although the said declaration forms had not been considered by either the Assistant Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner ?2. We are co...
Debi Prosad Poddar Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-1974
Reported in: [1977]109ITR760(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference we are concerned with the question of valuation of immovable property. In order to appreciate the question referred we will briefly state the facts. This reference is in respect of assessment to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1962-63. The assessee purchased the house property (godowns) at Nos. 196, 197 and 198, Maharshi Devendra Road, Calcutta, in 1946 for a sum of Rs. 3,20,000. The said property bears three municipal numbers but the property is really one. It consists of very old godowns standing on an area of about 42 cottahs of land on the said Maharshi Devendra Road, opposite Mayo Hospital in Calcutta. It was let out to three different tenants. The net annual rents received from these godowns were) Rs. 10, 359 in the assessment years 1957-58 to 1960-61, Rs. 11,490 in the assessment year 1961-62 and Rs. 8,971 in the assessment year 1962-63. We are not quite aware asto the reasons for the variation of rents for the different...
Sewaram Ridhkaran Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1974
Reported in: [1978]114ITR612(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not required to give a notice to the assessee under Section 185(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to remove the defect in the declaration in Form No. 12 dated December 29, 1965, made under Section 184(7) of the Act ?'2. The reference arises out of the assessment for the assessment year 1964-65. It appears that the assessee-firm was constituted under a deed of partnership dated August 28, 1962. For the assessment year 1963-64, the very first year when the firm became eligible for registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the registration was granted to it. One of the partners died on March 21, 1963, and a new deed of partnership was executed on June 18, 1963, and there was a fresh application for registration of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Belgachi Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1974
Reported in: [1975]99ITR99(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The assessee is a company carrying on the business of tea-growing. The assessment year is 1964-65, for which the relevant accounting year is the calendar year 1963. The Income-tax Officer found under the head ' repairs account ' an expenditure of Rs. 26,643. The said expenditure included the cost of fencing to the tune of Rs. 19,748. He, however, found that in the immediately preceding assessment year the assessee had claimed an expenditure in respect of fencing to the tune of Rs. 4,630. After looking into the details of the expenditure, the Income-tax Officer was of the view that new fencing lines were fixed with new pillars, and, therefore, a major portion of the expenditure was capital expenditure. He, therefore, disallowed on estimate a sum of Rs. 12,000. There was an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was urged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that no new fencing were put up during the year under consideration and that the e...
The Food Corporation of India Vs. Srish Chandra Guha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal215
ORDERRamendra Mohan Datta, J.1. This is an application for stay of suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act X of 1940. It is quite apparent from the plaint that the subject-matter of the suit being Suit No. 75 of 1973 (Food Corporation of India v. Srish Chandra Guha) filed in this Court on February 24, 1973 is covered by the arbitration clause in the contract entered into by and between the parties herein.2. Mr. Jayanta Mittcr, counsel for the Food Corporation of India, contends that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the discretion of the Court should be exercised in refusing to stay the suit because of the following grounds. It is contended that the averment relating to readiness and willingness on the part of the applicant made in paragraph 9 of the petition have been verified as submissions and this being a question of fact and the verification being in that form it should be held that the applicant for stay has failed to discharge the onus of proving the readiness an...
Haridas Mundhra Vs. Mahabir Prasad Juthalal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal357
Hazra, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by Haridas G. Mundhra (shortly called 'Haridas Mundhra') against the order of adjudication made by Ajoy K. Basu, J. on 6-3-1973 in an insolvency petition presented by his creditors.2. On June 19, 1959, a decree was passed by the Bombay High Court in Suit No. 1182 of 1954 in favour of Bai Kamla Bai, Mahabir Prasad Juthalal, Shyara Sundar Juthalal and Kailash Pat alias Arun Kumar Juthalal against Haridas Mundhra for the sura of Rs. 5,09715,98 P. and interest on the principal sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum and costs. The decree-holders and/or the heirs of the decree-holders transmitted the said decree to this Court for execution.3. By an order dated March 17, 1960 passed in Suit No. 610 of 1958 In Brahmaputra Tea Co. v. S. B. Industries Development Co. Ltd. and Haridas Mundhra, this Court appointed Mr. S.K. Acharyya, Bar-rister-at-Law as Receiver over 2005 ordinary shares of Haridas Mundhra with directions to collect ...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Asiatic Textiles Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1974
Reported in: [1976]103ITR166(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The following question has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that in view of the capital loss of Rs. 11,86,000 suffered by the assessee-company on account of depreciation in the value of the shares of M/s. Elphinstone Mills Ltd., payment of any dividend at all during any of the three relevant accounting years would have been unreasonable?'2. The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. The assessment years involved in, this reference are 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60, for which the corresponding previous years ended on the 30th June. 1956, 30th June, 1957 and 30th June, 1958, respectively. The assessments to income-tax for these years were completed on the company on a total income of Rs. 2,01,281, Rs. 3,68,041, and Rs. 1,07,177, respectively. The undistribut...
Hiralal Chatterjee Vs. Indra Narayan Chatterjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal171
Salil Kumar Datta, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of D. Basu, J. dated June 20, 1968 in Civil Rule No. 122 (w) of 1966. The facts as appearing from the petition are as follows: The Regional Transport Authority. Bankura (hereinafter referred to as 'R.T.A.') declared one vacancy on Bankura to Golabari via Indpur and Khatra Road and applications were invited for permits. The petitioner as also the opposite party No. 2 and others applied for the same and altogether 78 applications were received. The police verifications were made in respect of the said candidates. About opposite party No. 2 the police report stated that he washolding permits in other routes, solvent to purchase bus, though he had no knowledge of driving motors. About the petitioner the police report said that he had experience of motor transport business for ten years, held no permit in any route and was solvent to purchase bus. It was further stated that the opposite party No. 2 had also share in o...
Tarapada Alias Khokan Chatterjee Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1263
Bimal Chandra Basak, J.1. This is an application for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directed against an order passed by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad on the 11th April, 1974, in exercise of power conferred by Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. By the said order the petitioner detenu was directed to be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order,2. The grounds relied upon in support of such detention, which were served on the petitioner, read as follows;-1. On 20-1-1974 noon at 12.00 hrs. you called Shrimati Radharani Haider w/o. Shri Manindra Haider of godown colony, P. S. Raghunathganj to your house on a false plea, wrongfully confined her and tried to outrage her modesty by force as a result she sustained injuries. This daring and violent act to outrage the modesty of a woman in broad daylight created panic and consternation among th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›